Oh excuse me 'genius', who doesn't understand either aerospace engineering or small business economics.

Anyone have the figures on how much money Elon Musk has sunk into SpaceX and how much it cost him for his three failed attempts to get to orbit? How about how many people he's employing to get his rockets flying? How does his spending, employment and accomplishments with compare to John's accomplishments with Armadillo?

Anyone have the figures on how much money Elon Musk has sunk into SpaceX and how much it cost him for his three failed attempts to get to orbit? How about how many people he's employing to get his rockets flying? How does his spending, employment and accomplishments with compare to John's accomplishments with Armadillo?

I don't even think the values would be comparable because they would be so different. Remember Armadillo didn't even have a payroll for a few years. John Carmack likely couldn't purchase, much less develop a Falcon 1 for the amount of money he has invested.

But there is plenty of room in the world for a Falcon 1 and LLC VTVL type vehicle in the class that AA, Unreasonable, and Masten are developing. It's even possible that their revenue stream compaired to investment might be MUCH higher considering they are developming a capacity that humanity has never had before. Consider all the things that a LLC class VTVL style vehicle can do that have never been available before...

-Testing of vacuum start engines in space. Consider the ability to launch a vacuum start engine with only enough fuel to start and run the engine for 20 seconds. This might be within the capacity of a 4 engine module vehicle.-A 4 engine differentially throttled modular vehicle would be able to dominate the sounding rocket industry. If NOAA had access to a 100km altitude reusable, quick turn around monitoring platform, it would change the game in atmospheric research.-Routine access to low thermosphere could completely change the aerospace university experience. Emagine if having launched a can sat to -Space Diving, I have spent 5 thousand on a vacation before, I would likely spend 10 to skydive from space. These vehicles make that price point possible eventually.

Generally I'd say you are correct in that they're not really comparable but for this particular issue with our village idiot here I'd say that comparing the two it practically perfect. I think it's reasonably safe to say that SpaceX has been very successful and may be the only small privately owned company to achieve orbit. Since that is what dan here is saying Armadillo should be doing I would say SpaceX is exactly who he should be looking at to see why Armadillo isn't making orbit shots yet.

What you completely miss though is what would the point be of making such an attempt if it bankrupts and destroys Armadillo?

You basically claim that Armadillo's sub-orbital goals are 'useless' yet they're much more likely to not only further fund Armadillo's existence but give them greater experience.

Additionally I never claimed to be anybodies superior but if you are feeling inferior because you lack basic understanding of Armadillo's economic model along with lacking understanding of the engineering challenges and you have trouble with communication I don't see what that really has to do with me. All I'm attempting to do is hold up a mirror but you also seem to be extremely lacking in the ability to see your own flaws.

Although I suspect that you really have no interest in aerospace in any way and are only coming here in an attempt to rile people up.

Still you're good for a few chuckles and you keep the forum a little more lively so keep up the ignorant work, plenty here are laughing, even those of us who aren't quite 'geniuses'.

I'm not missing anything TJ. It wouldn't bankrupt AA nor Carmack. That's just more stupidity that wells up in you because it scares you to consider I could be right.

Try to understand that orbit capability doesn't mean saturn V size. the payload mass is a critical parameter that determines the required size of the rocket. reducing that allows a much smaller rocket. That's one of the many ways you can tell that Nasa is idiotic, for bringing the shuttle up each time which is dead weight. completely contrary to good rocketry practice.

And because it's possible to make very neat satellites that weigh very little it all becomes possible for a 'small' company like AA. My strength is exactly that I can think holistically. Piece it all together and find sweet spots.

But rockets don't scale linearly. For a start you have the surface area/volume ratio, meaning a smaller rocket will have a greater dry mass per kilo to orbit than a larger rocket. You also have guidence computers, gyroscopes etc that are a fixed mass penalty whether you're building a smart N-prize launcher or Sea Dragon, which do scale slightly, yes, but not linearly.

You seem to underestimate the potentials of suborbital vehicles, not just for tourism but also for quick and dirty R&D work which is applicable to orbital vehicles.

Besides, this is a moot point, as the modules are designed to be parts of an orbital vehicle anyway, OTRAG style, so if Armadillo can churn them out in big enough numbers, they effectively have orbital access.

Try to understand that orbit capability doesn't mean saturn V size. the payload mass is a critical parameter that determines the required size of the rocket. reducing that allows a much smaller rocket. That's one of the many ways you can tell that Nasa is idiotic, for bringing the shuttle up each time which is dead weight. completely contrary to good rocketry practice.

The Shuttle is optimized for downmass, Saturn 5 was optimized for upmass, EELV is optimized for reliability, Falcon 9 is optimized for labor and infrastructure use. The NGLLC launchers are optimized for 1st stage reusability and fast refueling. The Shuttle is not idiotic, it's brilliant for down-mass... which we no longer need.

Cost per lb to orbit is inversely proportional to the size of the rocket (No this can not be gamed either, if you find technology that makes the small launcher cheaper, it makes the bigger launcher EVEN MORE CHEAP). As Terminator said, some things just don't scale well, and others weigh about the same no matter how big your vehicle is (Falcon 9 and Falcon 1 avionics units are about the same mass). Small launchers are best suited to small payloads that can not share a ride with another vehilce.

The same reason that groceries are delivered to the store in a Lorry, not 1000 mopeds. On the other hand if you wanted to deliver pizzas fresh to 1000 homes, the 1000 mopeds would do better than the Lorry, but at a higher cost.

if that's right and I think it is, that means a 50cm diameter telescope (that's about 20inches for the backward people) has a resolution limit at 250km distance of about 32cm. which is about the size of a pizza.

I figure a 50cm space mirror can weigh less than 1kg (even much less but you nascar watching people freak out too loudly if it becomes too intelligent) so that leaves 9kg for magnet stabilizer, gyro orientation actuators, solar film, electronics, few batteries for night time operation, some scaffolding etc. should be easy to keep within 10kg

with a bit of thought one could probably pull off an unfolding mirror for 1meter aperture and that tasty 16cm resolution, still within 10kg, if one wanted to really piss off the assholes in uniform and really embarrass nasa and score very high on the open cool scale. of course at 16cm res the dynamic aim has to be very stable or the ground will rush by the view with untold fury. maybe an additional smaller wider angle camera would be prudent for viewfinding.

not one on this forum that wouldn't be glued to the screen for that first live view pass over area51's runway, first the wide view to spot the runway and locking the track and then switch to the narrow view where that unknown aircraft standing at the end of the runway, filling the screen in glistening live HDTV, getting it from every angle as the satellite arcs over it in 60 seconds.or when the telescope is panned to the horizon looking for odd looking satellites upthere, spotting one never before seen satellite after the other, keeping in mind that even 250km away it has 32cm res on them, lit up by bright sunshine, as they lazily, helplessly, roll by in a star trek-esque beautypass. this unwelcome papparazzi in the sky nails them all.

but none of this beauty that would make your souls soar higher than ever before will happen if this opportunity is wasted on giving roller coaster rides to rich fat texans.the world we get is a direct result of the quality of our choices. the future is not set.

If you went into orbit on a private spaceflight, even on a foreign flight, you would need to get a NOAA license to take a camera into orbit with you, and every image would need to be review by the government before release.

Otherwise you are looking at serious fines, jailtime, or even indefinite detention these days.

The paper work for a 10kg orbital sat is the same as the paper work for a 10 tonne sat. The legal costs are the same, the insurance costs are the same.

Launching something into orbit from America, or by Americans requires the approval of a dozen individual agencies. AA has enough trouble with paper-work as it is.

Being factually correct does not always correlate with being a nice person.

Why don't you try being a little more diplomatic, and perhaps people will stop getting so annoyed with you.

Quote:

not one on this forum that wouldn't be glued to the screen for that first live view pass over area51's runway, first the wide view to spot the runway and locking the track and then switch to the narrow view where that unknown aircraft standing at the end of the runway, filling the screen in glistening live HDTV, getting it from every angle as the satellite arcs over it in 60 seconds.

...oooh that's why, crazy conspiracy BS. Dude, they're trying to build a lunar lander. AA participates in the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge. It is a totally, totally different thing than what you're going on about. Would you not prefer them to maybe take some pictures of the apollo 11 descent module? Oh right, conspiracy too, its not there right?

Monkey liar, it might be conspiratorial but there is no uncertainty about the existence of the base at groom lake (popularly known as Area51) or that they have several very long runways there. at the very least they work on unknown aircraft there.

and while AA might have worked on something called a lunar lander it has absolutely no chance of being landed on the moon in any foreseeable future.

you're a troll yet I'm the one being called troll. is there noone in this forum with intelligence? Is it my fight alone and the rest of you are cowards?

Why do you have to insult people when you are posting? THe reason you are getting so much attention here is because your first post insults the hell out of Armadillo and John Carmack.

There is no way in hell there will ever be a response from them because if you really wanted a response you would have asked a question instead of stating your displeasure with the way they choose to do things.

So while you may be a smart you are certainly not smart about dealing with people.

Your ideas are intriguing. I would love to see you build your 10kg satellite. Where are you located? If you're close enough to my location, I could even help you. I'm tired of sitting on the sidelines while the guys at Armadillo have all the fun. We could probably even build the rocket to launch it. Maybe we could work with some of the N Prize people. I'm sure we could have something in orbit within a year - most likely on our first try.

I remember you coming here last year and complaining about how Armadillo wasn't making any progress. How much progress have you made in the last year? Do you have plans for the satellite yet? How about a rocket? Have you tested any hardware? Could you please post a report on your progress for us?